Md. Abdul Halim and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing letter No. 164 dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure-5) issued by the District Education Officer-cum-Districl Programme Officer, Sarv Shiskha Abhiyan, Pakur (Respondent No. 4) and also to quash the subsequent letters issued by the Block Development Officer and Presidents of Gram Sabha, Pakur district whereby it was communicated to the petitioners that the minimum education qualification for para teachers has been enhanced to Intermediate Trained and those who do not posses such qualification would not be allowed to continue on the post.

The contention of the petitioners is that they were appointed pursuant to an earlier advertisement under which the minimum qualification was Matriculate and their appointment was accordingly made. Though the initial appointment was made for a period of one year commencing from September, 2003 to September, 2004, but the period was subsequently enhanced for a further period of one year and therefore, the petitioners continued to be engaged on the post till April, 2005 but all of a sudden, pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioners were not allowed to work.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioners. It is explained that though it is true that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis only for a period of one year from September, 2003 to September, 2004 but it was never thereafter extended. It is further explained that subsequently a new legislation/rules has been introduced under the name of National Council for Teachers Education Regulation, 2001 under which the minimum qualification for the para teachers is Intermediate and therefore, the future appointment of para teachers should be made on the condition that such teachers shall posses minimum qualification of Intermediate and not less. It is also contended in the corresponding notification issued by the concerned authorities that those Matriculates teachers who are already under contract of appointment, their services should not be extended.

From the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, admittedly the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year commencing from September, 2003 to September, 2004. Though the petitioners'' claim that the period was extended for another one year but no such documents has been brought forth by way of agreement of extension between the petitioners and the concerned officials of the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners wants to take recourse to the Annexure-6 issued by the Block Extension Education Officer addressed to the President, Village Education Committee, demanding explanation as to why in spite of the directions issued by the higher authorities pursuant to the new N.C.T.E. Regulation, 2001, the para teachers who do not posses the requisite qualification of Intermediate are being allowed to continue in service.

I have gone through Annexure-6 which appears to be a general letter not specifically related to the petitioners in this case. In absence of any other agreement of extension of period executed between the petitioners and the concerned authorities, it cannot be accepted that the petitioners were allowed extension of period and that they had rendered services beyond September, 2004 after the tenure of contract had expired.

The claim of the petitioners is that since the respondents have illegally denied the petitioners from offering their services, the petitioners should be considered entitled for the salary for that period till the contractual period is over, is therefore, not tenable

In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.